“On Cloud Nine”: Positive memories in American Presidential Speeches (1945–2017)

Introduction

George W. Bush (R), in a 2001 message on the observance of Independence Day, declared,

Two hundred and twenty-five years ago, the signers of the Declaration of Independence boldly asserted that all are ‘created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness’. With these words, the Signers announced the birth of a new Nation and put forth a vision of liberty and democracy that would forever alter history (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/message-the-observance-independence-day-2001).

The above quote exemplifies what this article addresses: the presence of joy and pride in national commemorative rhetoric. From the moment of its inception, scholars of collective memory perceived commemoration as a strengthening and unifying force for social cohesion. In Durkheim’s (1915) words, “the glorious souvenirs which are made to live again before their eyes, and with which they feel that they have a kinship, give them a feeling of strength and confidence” (p. 420). This assumption was so well-grounded that it prompted Wagner-Pacifici and Schwartz (1991) to pose the question, “How is commemoration without consensus, or without pride, possible?” (p. 379). Thirty years later, the field of collective memory (whether in its academic or popular projects) is surrounded by painful memories, traumatic discourse and dark histories. The time has thus come to pose a countering sociological question, namely, is commemoration with joy still possible?

This question is especially pertinent when it comes to political leaders who face the inherent contradiction of serving their nations while performing as an official “cheerleader” when a sense of a lost paradise is prevalent. Trying to unravel this puzzle, we first suggest to depart from the binary division between good and bad memories and expand the category of the former to one that consists of a range of memories—none of which can be defined as negative. Second, we expose and analyze the appearance, occasions, and frequency of such memories in speeches made by American Presidents during ceremonial occasions over the course of 7 decades following World War II (WWII) (1945–2017). Third, we inquire into the relations of positive memories and political orientation. In doing so, we claim that the notion of good memories not only exists but it is even on the rise in American politics. Moreover, although political orientation influences the kind of memories American Presidents recalled, mnemonic work per se seems to be governed by future legacy considerations, which are shared by all.

Collective memory, epochal considerations, and political leadership

While collective memory as a social project and as a scientific endeavor initially was about constructing consensus and consolidating a glorious and heroic past (Durkheim, 1965; Shils, 1981), recent research has focused heavily on commemoration without consensus, on counter-memory, on nations’ difficult past and the like (e.g. Foucault, 1975; Gellman, 2015; Gutman, 2015; Sennet, 1998). Indeed, in his critique of the current shape of memory studies, Schwartz (2016) laments the excess emphasis on past wrongdoings of various sorts. We live, he states, in a society “in which great men and women and their achievements count for less, while the victimized, wounded, handicapped, and oppressed count for more than ever before” (Schwartz, 2008a: 8). The fact that there might be “too much” research and public discourse directed toward a “difficult past” (Vinitzky-Seroussi, 2002; Wagner-Pacifici and Schwartz, 1991) can be explained by epochal considerations as collective memory and commemoration (at least in America), started and developed toward the end of the twentieth century (Schwartz and Schuman, 2005). This epoch is characterized—with good reason—by a general disillusionment with humanity, reflected and depicted in memorials and public mourning (Winter, 1995) rather than heroic monuments (Mosse, 1991) and experiences that question altogether the mere ability to represent the past and narrate a coherent story (Benjamin, 1969). The rise of the discourse of trauma (Alexander et al., 2004), the culture of complaint (Maier, 1993), identity politics, and the expectations of nations to deal with their contested pasts (e.g. Gillis, 1994; Maier, 1988; Young, 1993), not to mention the concerns raised by ethics of memory (Margalit, 2002), added to a tendency to highlight the dark side of the past (see also Olick et al., 2011). Above all hovers the basic undertaking of science to push the limits and look for what is missing, silenced, and forgotten rather than what is present, mentioned, and remembered (e.g. Cohen, 2001; Huyssen, 2003; Vinitzky-Seroussi and Teeger, 2010).

Much has been said about the relations between collective memory and politics (Bodnar, 1992; Olick, 2007; Olick and Robbins, 1998; Zerubavel, 1995) and the way politicians use collective memory to explain the present and shape the future (Graham et al., 2004; Liu and Hilton, 2005; Olick, 1999; Olick and Robbins, 1998; Schwartz, 1996; Smith, 1992; Zelizer, 1995). Moreover, collective memories are called upon to deal with and make sense of current crises and challenges (Alexander, 2002; Brändström et al., 2004; Liu and Hilton, 2005) and to gain historical significance through simultaneous and interrelated processes of “keying” and “framing” (Schwartz, 1996). Policy and decision makers “govern by looking back,” (Brändström et al., 2004) by recruiting the nations’ collective wisdom to analyze and predict outcomes and shape support for a particular course of action or policy (Khong, 1992; Schuman and Rieger, 1992; Winfield et al., 2002). Needless to add that political leaders play a significant role as agents of memory (Vinitzky-Seroussi, 2009) and active carriers of their nations’ past events. But first, they are required to embody numerous roles such as chief of state, chief executive, commander-in-chief, and guardian of the economy (https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/the-executive-branch/). At the same time, the public also constantly expect them to act as moral guides, to provide comfort and consolation (Simko, 2015) and to address issues related to ongoing everyday matters and moments of rupture and transformation (Olick, 2016; Wagner-Pacifici, 2010). Turning to the past is more often than not the way to go when attempting to grapple with current issues and certainly when crises are involved. Thus, our search for national memories of joy is located at a tense intersection between a post-heroic and post-glorified era that encompasses traumatic discourse, narratives of a difficult past, and ongoing challenges on the one hand, and an expectation from one’s leader to provide guidance and inspiration on the other.

In light of the above inherent tension, our article sets out to trace and address the texture from which positive memories arise, are made and are brought forth in American political speeches. We first define the sought after memories, followed by an analysis of our findings, exploring the kind of inspiration American Presidents turn to. Let us first present the methodology used.

Defining positive memories and methodology

Our data set consists of 3071 public American presidential ceremonial speeches spanning over 7 decades. In light of the importance of political speeches (Crawford, 2002; Graham et al., 2004; Olick, 2016; Shenhav, 2006; Sierp, 2014), the choice of this rhetorical space to answer the research questions seems appropriate. And although some scholars claim that memories have become transportable (Landsberg, 2004), cosmopolitan (Levy and Sznaider, 2002) and transnational (De Cesari and Rigney, 2014; Huyssen, 2003; Kennedy, 2016; Rothberg, 2009; Sierp, 2014), national political rhetoric is still a major site where collective memory is played out (e.g. Olick, 2016; Simko, 2015). Moreover, speeches made by public figures assist in making a distinction between chronology and commemoration, between streams of events and those which are marked so important that they rise above the ordinary (Schwartz, 1982; Schwartz and Schuman, 2005). In fact, it is hard to imagine commemoration maintained on a national level without the presence of speeches in general and speeches given by heads of states in particular.

Our data set was gathered from The American Presidency Project (n.d.) and consists of speeches given at ceremonial occasions such as Inaugural and Farewell addresses, State of the Union addresses, anniversaries, dedications, holidays and the like. Tying into recent research focused on speeches delivered during commemorative events (Sierp, 2014; Simko, 2015), we closely read the texts searching for references to and sentiments about the national past without searching a priori for specific keywords, events, or people. This search was not restricted to certain types of speeches that would seemingly invite a positive interpretation of past events (such as holidays); rather, we attempted to reach out as widely as possible.

The compiling of our data set involved the following stages: (1) inclusion of only those speeches that “speak memory”; (2) collection of speeches that include positive memories; (3) exclusion of speeches that were given by American presidents on purely political party occasions (such as political campaigns); (4) exclusion of proclamations, memorandums, economic and budget-related documents, letters and executive orders, as we wanted to analyze public rhetoric aimed at the American public at large; (5) exclusion of joint statements, as we wanted to focus on the President as a sole “agent of memory” (Vinitzky-Seroussi, 2009); and (6) exclusion of news conferences and press briefings, as although this medium is publicly directed, the kind of rhetoric used is not considered “epideictic” (Campbell and Jamieson, 1990). Following the criteria used, 860 texts (28% of the entire corpus) were found and analyzed.

Our analysis begins with April 1945, following the end of WWII, with Harry S. Truman, and ends in January 2017 with Barack Obama. Our choice to begin our research in April rather than in January 1945 is due to the change of leadership following Franklin D. Roosevelt’s sudden death, Truman’s taking office and our wish to maintain, for the sake of comparison, presidential terms as a unit of analysis. The same goes for our decision to cover a bit more than 7 decades of speeches, ending our data set in January 2017, when Obama leaves office. Even the term “presidential term” does not lack its own intricacies, as some Presidents completed two terms (e.g. Reagan) or one term (e.g. Carter), one served 5 years (Johnson) and two did not complete their terms (Kennedy and Nixon). We will take that into account as we divide the amount of memory recalled by the number of years in service. In sum, our data set consists of six Republican Presidents and six Democratic Presidents with an even 36 years of Presidency for each party.

Before we define positive memories, we wish to acknowledge that a reality (constructed or not) of a binary distinction between good and bad memories does not and cannot reveal the whole range of sentiments emanated in mnemonic political utterance or in life more generally. We shall refer to this “in-between” category (Turner, 1967; Zerubavel, 1991) shortly. Positive memories are those references to the past that contain a sense of happiness and glee, pride and glory, benignity, and mildness. Within that contour, we distinguished between three categories: joy, pride, and benignity. By “joy,” we include references to the past that contain the word “joy” as well as any of its synonyms. Moreover, we include in this category the conveyance of an uplifting, generally cheerful tone. Thus, for example, Reagan (R), in his 1981 statement on the celebration of Passover and Easter said the following:

… on Sunday morning Christians will celebrate with their families the resurrection of Christ, His victory over death. We will remember that He gave His body and His blood—washing clean the faults and the shortcomings of the world. In our rejoicing we will renew the hope that is ours through the risen Lord (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-celebration-passover-and-easter).

By “pride,” we refer to speeches that include the word “pride” and words and phrases that transfer a sentiment of elevation, a sense of exaltedness, such as “glory,” “triumph,” and “victorious.” Let us turn to yet another speech made by Reagan (R) In his 1985 remarks at a flag day ceremony, he said,

This flag that we salute today is a replica of one that flew through the night, … 171 years ago during the bombardment of Fort McHenry signaling defiance to the British and hope and inspiration to Francis Scott Key. Some historians have called the War of 1812 the second war of independence, the crucial test of our young republic as it fought for its life against what was then the strongest nation on Earth (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-flag-day-ceremony-baltimore-maryland).

Although commemoration is naturally associated with expressions of enthusiasm and suffused with energy and excitement, positive memories, as we mentioned before, also include an in-between category that might be less pronounced yet still does not belong on the negative side of the mnemonic pendulum. We call this category benignity. Here, we include those memories that are evoked in a favorable manner or at the very least not in a negative way. Therefore, for example, in his 2000 remarks at the Award Ceremony for the National Teacher of the Year, Clinton (D) recalls Truman in a way that is neither negative nor too enthusiastic. This is what we find to be a benign memory:

President Truman presented the first of these awards here at the White House almost half a century ago. And every year since, Presidents … have personally handed out this award to recognize not only the awardee and the awardees but, indeed, all of our teachers (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-award-ceremony-for-the-national-teacher-the-year-0).

The categorization of the memories was based on a thorough reading of the speeches, enabling the texts to “speak for themselves.” While it was relatively straightforward to categorize the texts when joy or pride were involved, those belonging to the category of benignity were harder to decipher, due to the ambiguity of this category. Thus, benign memories were categorized mainly by what they lacked as well as by comparison to other memories.

A note has to be made about the relationship (or lack thereof) between the context in which speeches take place, the past events that are evoked, and the utilization of the memory. Our research attests to cases where positive references made to the past were raised whether the occasions were happy or sad (e.g. award ceremony and memorial day) or whether the events referred to were jubilant or tragic (e.g. inception of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), political assassination). Our research thus unearthed that positive sentiments can be raised around different kinds of past events and in different contexts.

It is hard to imagine an American president using a negative sentiment on specific ceremonial occasions (e.g. Inauguration). Indeed, presidential speeches have a specific rhetorical structure as Campbell and Jamieson (1990) assert. At the same time, the kind of expected voice (e.g. uncritical or encouraging) does not mean that the innuendo that arises from such rhetoric is always positive. Rather, it may constitute a sense of sadness, sorrow, melancholy, even criticism, none of which are or should be considered positive. Thus, for example, President Carter (D) upon his 1979 remarks at the dedication ceremony for the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston said,

At the thee, the tragedy in Dallas seemed an isolated convulsion of madness. But in retrospect, it appears near the beginning of a thee of darkness. From Vietnam to Cambodia, from Los Angeles to Memphis, from Kent State to Watergate, the American spirit suffered under one shock after another, and the confidence of our people was deeply shaken (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/boston-massachusetts-remarks-dedication-ceremonies-for-the-john-f-kennedy-library).

One last word has to be said about the categorization in this research. Needless to add that every coding decision has an impact on the results, yet one decision we made requires elaboration on, as it touches on a deeper issue that troubles scholars of collective memory, namely the one of meaning (e.g. Kansteiner, 2002; Schwartz and Schuman, 2005). This dilemma of coding was especially critical when it came to two figures and two events, namely Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement. We decided to keep them separate despite the temptation to consider them indistinguishable as this distinction was prominent in the texts. Although we cannot know what the actual speakers had in mind when they kept those events apart from those figures, we did not get enough clues for a contrary coding decision. Let us now turn to our findings and analysis.

Findings

Looking into 7 decades of American presidential speeches, we see what one might describe as nothing short of an epochal change in political cultural rhetoric (see Figure 1). Since the 1980s, beginning with Reagan’s average of 32 positive memories per year, and ending with Obama’s average of 50 positive memories per year, ¹ the utilization of positive memories is constantly on the rise. This finding may be explained first and foremost by a general increase in the presence of collective memory in popular, commercial, social, political, and academic spheres from the 1970s on, what is often termed as “the memory boom” (e.g. Huyssen, 2003; Olick et al., 2011; Winter, 2001). In addition, this rise can be also understood in terms of major media-related developments (e.g. change in the frequency of reporting news) coupled with and intensified by an emphasis on “performance of power” (Burke, 2005), the “modern phenomenon of celebrity” (Elteren, 2013), and a general mood of the “performance of politics” (Alexander, 2010). We cannot of course claim that the current search for performance solely depends on happy material, as political manipulations may be based on negative sentiments, but positive memories can certainly assist those who wish to enhance moments of elation among their listeners. It is worth noting that the accelerated tendency to use more positive memories is shared by presidents from both sides of the political map. The only exception in this line can be found with G.W. Bush with only 21 positive memories per year. This finding may be explained by the fact that 9/11 took place 8 short months after President Bush entered office and may have overshadowed his term. Indeed 9/11, more often than not, is associated with Pearl Harbor (see, for example, Angstrom, 2011; Bostdorff, 2003; Noon, 2004) and thus may have left President Bush few opportunities to bring up positive memories. While we may never know for sure the answer for this puzzle, it is relatively safe to say that each president was required to face major challenges that could deeply affect the general American mood. Still, President Bush, who served 7 years following the trauma, could have used positive memories on different public occasions, and yet he did not do so. Moreover, our data show that even before 9/11 President Bush seldom incorporated positive memories in his speeches.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Average of positive memories per year per president.

We need to attend to a peak that contradicts the tendency we found. We refer here to Ford’s term with an average of 38 positive memories per year while his predecessors (apart from Johnson to whom we will shortly refer) and successor used significantly less. An explanation for this rise in positive memories can be related to the urgent need to reconstruct the American belief in its presidency following the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s resignation. Moreover, Ford was president during the US bicentennial celebrations and observances (1975–1976), which were about reaffirming and strengthening historical, cultural and national claims (Spillman, 1994). Obviously, the president at the time was expected to take a major part in those mnemonic rituals. Indeed, much of what constituted Ford’s positive memories had to do with those founding years.

A word is in order regarding Johnson’s relatively (to his time) higher tendency to evoke positive memories. Similar to Ford, we suggest the reason lies in the crisis in leadership following Kennedy’s assassination which may enhance the need to take upon oneself the role as a moral leader and guide and provide hope, consolation and a sense of continuity.

At the top of the 10 most frequent positive memories, regardless of party affiliation, one may find American presidents as the major inspiration in political rhetoric (see Table 1). American presidents appear in more than 25% of all mentions of positive memories. For example, G.H.W. Bush (R), in his 1989 Inaugural Address, evoked the memory of Washington, saying,

I’ve just repeated word for word the oath taken by George Washington 200 years ago … It is right that the memory of Washington be with us today not only because this is our bicentennial inauguration but because Washington remains the Father of our Country. And he would, I think, be gladdened by this day; for today is the concrete expression of a stunning fact: our continuity, these 200 years, since our government began (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/inaugural-address).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Top 10 most frequent sources of positive memories.

Memory evoked	Percentage	Frequency all
Presidents	25.69%	439
Founding moments	17.26%	295
Christ	7.55%	129
Civil Rights	6.61%	113
WWII	6.03%	103
Abraham Lincoln	3.98%	68
F.D.R.	3.80%	65
Martin Luther King, Jr.	3.45%	59
George Washington	3.28%	56
John F. Kennedy	3.16%	54
Moon Landing	2.46%	42

Except American presidents, the only other public figure who is ranked in the top 10 most frequent use of positive memories is Martin Luther King. For example, Reagan (R), in his 1982 remarks on receiving the Charles Evans Hughes Gold Medal of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, observed,

A courageous American named Martin Luther King organized a struggle for racial equality that led to historic changes in our society. He walked in the footsteps of other martyred Americans of other races and other ages. He, too, was an American pilgrim. The sacrifice that Martin Luther King made brings tears of sorrow, but the good he did brings tears of gratitude and a message of hope (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-new-york-city-receiving-the-charles-evans-hughes-gold-medal-the-national).

Undoubtedly, American political leadership matters in inspiring positive memories.

America’s founding moments constitute the second most frequent source of positive memories. This category comprises various events that are associated with America’s formative moments. For example, Ford (R), in a 1976 bicentennial celebration in Michigan, remarked,

Think for a moment … some 200-plus years ago, some 3 million Americans fought for freedom in some 13 poor, poor Colonies. They took on a government 1,000 or more miles away, but they had the courage and the vision and the determination, and they won that battle for what we have today. And they gave us in this country the greatest Constitution, the most wonderful document for the governing of people in the history of mankind (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-bicentennial-celebration-saginaw-michigan).

The third most frequent source of positive memories is Jesus Christ, his birth, life, death, resurrection, and other mentions of related Christian figures (e.g. St. Paul). ² Obama (D) in his 2013 remarks at “Christmas in Washington” said,

The sacred birth of Jesus Christ was God’s gift to man on Earth. And through His example, He taught us that we should love the Lord, love our neighbors as we love ourselves. It’s a teaching that has endured for generations (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-christmas-washington-7).

The fourth most frequent memories (6.6%) relate to civil rights. In his 2004 remarks at the opening of the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site in Topeka, Kansas, G.W. Bush (R) declared,

I’m honored to join you at this historic place to mark a day and a decision that changed America for the better and forever. Fifty years ago today, nine judges announced that they had looked at the Constitution and saw no justification for the segregation and humiliation of an entire race (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-opening-the-brown-v-board-education-national-historic-site-topeka-kansas).

While we explained in the method section why we divided Martin Luther King and Civil Rights into two separate categories, it is worth noting that if the two were adjoined, the order of the ranking would change significantly, elevating civil rights to be the third most frequently invoked positive memory, surpassing that of Christ.

WWII ranks fifth (6%). Obama (D), in his 2015 statement on the 70th Anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, stated,

Today we salute the more than 16 million Americans who left everything they knew—their families, their homes—to serve in World War II and then came home to help build the America we know today. We honor the memory of the more than 400,000 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice so that we might live free. We rededicate ourselves—on this day and every day—to the freedoms for which they fought and to the American Dream for which they died (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-70th-anniversary-v-e-day).

Moving to the next five most frequently invoked memories, we find Lincoln (4%), ³ F.D.R. (3.8%), Luther King (3.45%), Washington (3.3%), Kennedy (3.2%), and “moon landing” (2.46%). Let us give two examples. Truman (D), in his 1952 Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union, recalls Washington by stating,

In all we do, we should remember who we are and what we stand for … In the darkest of all winters in American history, at Valley Forge, George Washington said, ‘We must not, in so great a contest, expect to meet with nothing but sunshine.’ With that spirit they won their fight for freedom (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/annual-message-the-congress-the-state-the-union-17).

Recalling “moon landing,” Nixon (R), in his 1970 statement on the anniversary of the first manned lunar landing, stated,

This triumph of unique achievement, described by our first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong, as ‘one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind,’ brought with it a moment of greatness in which we all shared, a priceless moment when the people of this earth became truly one in the joy and wonder of a dream realized (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-anniversary-the-first-manned-lunar-landing).

Delving into the choices specific presidents made in terms of which positive memories they use, we see that all Republican Presidents and three Democratic Presidents (Johnson, Carter, and Clinton) evoke American Presidents and the nation’s founding moments as the two most frequently invoked positive memories. The three other Presidents—all of whom are Democrats—Truman, Kennedy, and Obama, also use Presidents as one of the top two most frequent sources of inspiration. However, they differ in their second choices: For Truman, it was Christ; for Kennedy, it was WWII; and for Obama, it was Civil Rights (see Figure 2). This, together with the fact that Obama significantly exceeded the average use of positive memories, caused us to pause on his choice for the second most inspiring positive memories and examine its impact on a more general view of our findings. We found that Democratic Presidents mention civil rights more often than Republican Presidents (p < .01). The difference between the parties still exists even if Obama’s use of civil rights is excluded, but its significance is lowered to p < .05.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Top two most frequent positive memories across all American Presidents.

Party affiliation makes a difference (see Table 2). Republican Presidents tend to use the nation’s founding moments more often than Democrats do (p < .05), while Christ and Kennedy (p < .05 in both cases) are used more often by Presidents belonging to the Democratic Party. Although the choice of Kennedy needs no explanation, the role of Christ among Democrats begs one. We shall attend to that below. Although the following mentions are not statistically significant, the results strengthen our argument. Republicans tend to use Lincoln and Washington as their sources for positive memories more often than their Democratic counterparts, and Democrats tend to use the moon landing, Martin Luther King and F.D.R. more than Republicans. In some ways, Republicans find more solace in the far past, while their Democratic counterparts find their muse in more recent past (apart from Christ). It is worth noting that women’s rights (located in the second group of 10) are mentioned only by Democratic Presidents (21 times vs 0).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Chi-square difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Memory evoked	Number of times mentioned by Democrats	Number of times mentioned by Republican	Chi-square
Presidents (aggregated)	217	222	0.056948
Founding moments	129	166	4.640678*
Christ	77	52	4.844961*
Civil Rights	91	22	42.13274**
WWII	50	53	0.087379
Abraham Lincoln	30	38	0.941176
F.D.R.	36	29	0.753846
Martin Luther King Jr.	35	24	2.050847
George Washington	25	31	0.642857
John F. Kenney Kenney	36	18	6*
Moon Landing	25	17	1.52381

WWII: World War II.

*

The cell figures are statistically significant (p < .05).

**

The cell figures are statistically significant (p < .01).

When we look at the rhetoric used, we detect three categories: pride, joy, and benignity. Only a handful of positive memories belong to benignity (9%), a minority belongs to joy (12%), and the overwhelming majority is attributed to pride (78%). This phenomenon can be easily explained, as commemorative moments are about grandeur, glorification, and much energy (e.g. Hobsbawn and Ranger, 1983; Shils, 1981), and benignity belongs to a relatively mundane social mood. Memories of benignity appear in all but one (WWII) of our top 10 events/people and never exceed those of pride. For five of those events/people (Presidents, civil rights, Lincoln, F.D.R. and Martin Luther King, Jr.), memories of benignity exceed those of joy. We have two explanations for this phenomenon. The first one lies in American political culture (Alexander and Smith, 1993), where each political side respects the other but would not go out of its way to enthusiastically salute it. Thus, for example, G.W. Bush (R), in his 1991 remarks on presenting the Presidential Medal of Freedom Awards said, “Since the first Presidential Medal, since those first recipients were chosen by President John Kennedy in 1963, some of the world’s most notable individuals have been honored” (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-presenting-the-presidential-medal-freedom-awards). The second explanation has to do with the association already tied to a specific event in which the mnemonic utterance is made. For instance, Theodore Roosevelt is considered to be the “founding father” of the conservation of natural resources in America. His role in that context is so far relatively secure. Thus, whenever any other president is mentioned within that specific context, it will more often than not be in a benign way.

Christ is a prime source of memories of joy. In Truman’s (D) 1948 radio remarks on the occasion of the lighting of the community Christmas tree on the White House grounds, he stated,

The moving event of the first Christmas was the bringing forth of the first born in the stable in Bethlehem. There began in humble surroundings the home life of the Holy Family glorified in song and story and in the hearts of men down through the centuries … As a Nation we have a history of a little more than a century and a half. But the religion which came to the world heralded by the song of the Angels has endured for nineteen centuries. It will continue to endure. It remains today the world’s best hope for peace if the world will accept its fundamental teaching that all men are brothers (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/radio-remarks-the-occasion-the-lighting-the-community-christmas-tree-the-white-house).

It is worth noting that Christ is commonly invoked by old-timers (like Truman) as well as contemporary presidents like Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Obama. Christ, in other words, is still very relevant.

Although we thought that party affiliation would make no difference in mentions of Christ or that it would be more significant among Republicans as “in recent decades, the Republican Party’s elites, activist base, and electoral coalition have become much more traditionalist, whereas their Democratic counterparts have grown more modernist and secular,” (Layman et al., 2006: 86) our data proved us wrong. Democratic Presidents use Christ more often than their Republican counterparts (p < .01). But as long as an overwhelming majority of American society believes in God or a higher power (see, for example, Pew Research Center, 2016), Democrats may feel that they need to assure their constituencies regarding their spiritual commitment.

In addition and apart from Christ, who is by far the number one memory in the category of joy, Washington also enjoys a relatively substantial reference (18%), and is significantly higher among Republicans (p < .01).

Turning to memories of pride, we find a consensus in the utilization of specific events/people. For five of those events/people, over 90% of the times the memory was evoked it was done so with a sense of pride. The first event is WWII (95%), followed by “moon landing” (93%), civil rights, founding moments and Martin Luther King (92% each). Let us give an example. Johnson (D), in his 1965 Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union, recalls the founding moments:

We are entering the third century of the pursuit of American union. Two hundred years ago, in 1765, nine assembled colonies first joined together to demand freedom from arbitrary power … And so tonight, now, in 1965, we begin a new quest for union … We seek to establish a harmony between man and society which will allow each of us to enlarge the meaning of his life and all of us to elevate the quality of our civilization. This is the search that we begin tonight (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/annual-message-the-congress-the-state-the-union-26).

All other top 10 events/people share a high number of memories of pride except Christ, for which the notion of joy takes over (95%; see discussion above).

The themes of Presidents, WWII, F.D.R., Martin Luther King, Washington, and the moon landing transcend party affiliation when it comes to sources of pride in political rhetoric. Party affiliation makes a difference, however, as Republican Presidents use the nation’s founding moments (p < .01) and Lincoln (p < .05) as a source of pride significantly more frequently than their Democratic counterparts, and the Democratic Presidents use Kennedy (p < .01) as their inspiration more frequently than their Republican colleagues. F.D.R. (D), on the other hand, seems to be mentioned indistinguishably by Republican and Democrats, which can be explained by his special standing in American history (e.g. Dallek, 1995).

Finally, let us turn to the occasions in which positive memories are brought up (see Figure 3). Our findings suggest that memories of pride dominate Inaugural addresses (100%), memorial ceremonies (100%), Independence Day (98%), farewells (96%), States of the Union (92%), dedications (91%) anniversaries (87%), and Labor Day (85%). Memories of joy embody Christmas (89%) and Easter (86%). Although memories of joy have a central place in Thanksgiving (55%), the existence of pride (19%) and benignity (17%) testify to the holiday’s complex meaning (see Adamczyk, 2002; Schwartz, 2008b). In other words, specific occasions, while not necessarily dictating certain sentiments, call for a specific kind of positive memory.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Occasions of positive memories.

Conclusion

So, are memories of joy possible in America post WWII? Our answer is “yes, but.” While the majority of references to the past in commemorative speeches belong to what may be defined as sad moments and unhappy memories, we can still detect a substantial minority (over a quarter of the data set) under the rubric of positive memories. Our analysis expands the horizon of positive memories and divides them into three sub categories: pride, joy, and benignity. We discovered that a clear majority of positive memories belong to the category of pride, a minority of memories are ones of joy and a handful of memories can be defined as ones of benignity.

American Presidents undoubtedly are continually the number one source of inspiration for positive memories regardless of party affiliation. In addition to paying tribute and appreciation to great deeds led by specific presidents, such a unified homage to their ancestors can be explained by the centrality and importance of American presidency as a social and political institution and perhaps as part of the speaker’s personal desire to be mentioned and remembered in the future. In other words, the public rhetoric in the context of American positive memories seems to be about working on one’s own future legacy.

America’s founding moments consensually serve as an important source of positive memories for an overwhelming majority of the speakers. At first sight, President Obama seems to deviate from this pattern, as his primary choice for positive memories is civil rights rather than the revolutionary era. However, Obama is far from being an outlier as for him civil rights may be the real founding moment and he may be the ultimate embodiment of it. In Alexander’s (2010) words, Obama’s “career outside and inside politics rode the waves of the new [1960] social movement” (p. 4).

Clearly, individual understanding and utilization of pride and joy may differ over the years and among presidents, but the sources for inspiration in the USA remain the same. Still, party politics matter. Republicans receive their inspiration from their founding moments while Democrats find their own in Christ, Kennedy and civil rights. Leaving Christ aside, Republicans tend to turn to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and their spirit while Democrats find their anchors for positive memories in the twentieth century and its ethos.

Finally, we wish to attend to the occasions in which positive memories are present. Joy seems to be generated by religious holidays and celebrations. Pride fills mnemonic talk on national occasions. The occasion for benignity is more complex as benignity, by definition, is a sort of residual category and somewhat elusive but nonetheless non-negative.

The question of positive memories is a timely one. This article attempted to grapple with the tension between current reality, its discontent and the constant need and expectation of political leaders to provide comfort, inspiration and hope to their public—in this case, to the American public. Within the rhetoric offered, we find a minority of positive memories to begin with. Within that category, memories of pride are the dominant genre, and memories of joy constitute a minority within a minority. Thus, scholars of memory studies were not far off when they chose to focus on bleak, mournful and controversial moments, yet memories of pride and joy are there to be celebrated and glorified—not every day but from time to time.